on being urged..."bhajji is cleared. write a post"...i do so
well what's there to say? is this evidence of BCCI arm-twisting? or was he actually innocent?
i think the marginal gain from banning bhajji would have been much less than the marginal cost of doing so. because if cricket is to fight racism, i'm sure there are better ways to do it. and if harbhajan was docked, it would have been hell. the BCCI would have made sure of this.
oh economics! i love those marginal decisions!
8 comments:
grin
hmmm...that's a pretty cynical view to take. this was about making a judgement, and the question confronting the judge would have been evaluating whether P(the word 'monkey' being used|recorded version of events)=1 or not.
as for the BCCI invoking hell - i don't think they'd ever do that actually. if they did try bullying to the extent of calling off the tour, in the long term other teams would be wary of playing with the indian team (except for maybe zimbabwe or bangladesh or bermuda).Besides, the viability of the IPL could be jeopardized if gilchrist, warne et al decide not to turn up.while the bcci can buy off cricket australia's ass, it needs aussie players to sell its content. that was just some lowly unnamed official type trying to grandstand.
the p doesn't have to be 1, it only has to be greater than 1 - p...he he i'm a nerd
i was referring to the bhajji court room scene part II, so the question of calling off tour does not arise. I'm pretty confident the BCCI can do a heck of a lot more than it has done here...anybody remember match fixing? i dont know what it could or couldn't do, i'm just saying the risk of pissing them off was perceived greater than the gain from docking someone for a racist comment, which in any case is not proved.
i cannot believe that this decision was without significant under the table dealing.
jc is right. p has to equal 1 to convict bhajji or anyone. i may not know too much cricket but anything less than proving anyone guilty without doubt, means leaving him innocent:
p<1 => innocence.
i seemed to have picked some law & eco!
hehe i like how things are getting all animated in your comments. needless to say, i'm jealous too...no-one comments on my blog :(
anyway-i don't know what you mean by referring to match-fixing here-that is/was a bigger problem and not just the bcci's fault.
this particular case didn't need back-room deals - there just isn't enough proof to give a solid verdict against bhajji. as for licking the bcci's backside - the icc may do it, but actually australia is one of the few countries with a strong enough domestic setup to get by without the bcci's money. also, there can always be new sources of money - for example, i'm sure allen stanford would be more than happy to throw some money icc's way.
and finally - p>1-p would not be 'just'. while it is not necessary that p=1, it will have to tend as close to 1 as to make very little difference - beyond reasonable doubt, as it were...
i disagree. the probability that someone is innocent has to greater than the probability he/she is guilty. that is all. i dont see why this isn't "just", i don't understand why it has to be equal to 1 or close to it.
ok, hang on, lets go to econometrics and do this properly. when you have a p-value on a statistic, it is the probability that a particular hypothesis is false given how much of an error you wish to make by accepting the estimated value of the statistic even if this is incorrect.
so it is a question of how much doubt you want to allow. p<1 does not imply innocence automatically. p = 1 means you allow for no doubt at all. p tending to 1 is better and leaves a little doubt.
the BCCI (along with other cricket boards) did a great job of covering up the match fixing scandal, and I am willing to bet (!) people from the BCCI were involved the most in terms of monetary amount exchanged.
eh what was all this about anyway.. i think the whole second round of court interview was a sham.
BY THE WAY, p=1 or tending to 1 are both consistent with p>1-p, the inequality will hold in both cases.
and i re-iterate:
the risk of pissing off BCCI would have been greater than the benefit of "fighting racism".
i re-re-iterate:
(a)p>1-p is a silly rule.
(b)when deciding a judgment, it is up to the judge how much doubt he/she wishes to allow room for.
(c) jc is looking at the "verdict" by analyzing the relative bargaining power of cricket boards. I am also doing the same, but I am viewing the process as being determined primarily by how the BCCI would react, and this implicitly says that I consider that the BCCI is all powerful.
(d) phew
Post a Comment